|
Kali Yuga tries to debunk Giggleton's arguments by calling them “Friday afternoon technobabble.” He says that a new technical ability does not create the moral framework to make the action permissible. He uses the ability to go around killing people because he has a gun as an example an activity that is made possible by a technology but is still impermissible. His second point is that the idea that the world will be a better place and that corporate interests will evaporate is ridiculous. He finishes his rebuttal by saying that copyright is a social contract enforced by laws.
As far as his first point, he is correct but only in theory. Possibility does not equal permissibility. But he inadequately connects theory to copyright and sharing. To connect this to his final point, copyright is a social contract enforced by laws because it is generally seen that copyright does society the most good. But no law serves an absolute principle. Every law constrains liberty, but the damage it does to overall liberty is offset by the greater protections its provides. If a law no longer does good than harm, it must be changed or abolished. The question now is whether we should gimp the technology that makes production of information infinitely easy so that creators can profit the way they have always profited. The question isn't even a matter of compensation. It's a question of whether the old method of compensation, the old business model, is the best business model. New technology has always agitated old industries. The moving image was a threat to the stage. The radio and the album was a threat to the live performance. Cable and vcr was a threat to movies. Each time old industries tried to use the law to crush new technologies, and had they succeeded society would be much worse.
In summation, Yuga fails to make an argument. Instead, Yuga assumes that his position is a first principle, when in fact it must be proved. Yuga begs the question.
Yuga's post is number 5. I will continue the review at a later time to see if Carld was correct in his assertion that anti-copyright proponents have yet to make “a cogent, thoughtful and considerate.” We will let the world decide (or the three people who will read this post.) For now I am tired, and though I may still make smartass posts in this thread and other threads, I will continue my review at a later time. Now, I am off to the fortress of pretense.
|